Perhaps, but then again look what happened to their measurements of the TH118...

True dat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Steele

P
If we had a FLH with the same path length and throat and mouth sizes, I bet no-one would question that the resonance frequency would be lowered if we put two side by side. But then it's claimed that doesn't happen if those FLHs are replaced with THs. Why?

There is also an issue with impedance, and IIRC, compression ratio. - The same factors, as far as I can tell, that make Art's Keystone mouth extension work.

But let's face it, I don't fully understand ANY of the physics here. I'm just throwing out other factors to look at.

We toyed with the idea of achieving good multiple units coupling when we developed the THAM18, it's a tapped horn with a 63 deg expansion roughly from the center of the driver to the end of the last segment, the coupling area is ~3733cm2, since it did not hurt the results so we went with it.

I'm sorry to say I do not know, one would have to compare it with a similar design with significantly less coupling area, but as I wrote it was juat a thought, and seeing that it only seemed to bring a slightly higher sensistivity in the upper passband range in the simulations we thought it did not hurt to keep it.

I'm sorry to say I do not know, one would have to compare it with a similar design with significantly less coupling area, but as I wrote it was juat a thought, and seeing that it only seemed to bring a slightly higher sensistivity in the upper passband range in the simulations we thought it did not hurt to keep it.

While for the tham15?
Are there any contraindications to uniting more units than tham 15? type 6 per side or 12 at the stage center?